Debating Glenn Greenwald on Twitter seems impossible. It’s like trying to defend your master’s thesis on Twitter. Or, maybe it’s more like trying to compose your master’s thesis on Twitter. In any case, pointless. Better to do so in a column. For the record, I endorse Bob Cesca’s argument in full. But I particularly endorse this:
What I and many others are demanding and, in my case, have demanded for quite some time going back to the Bush administration, is that via an act of Congress and a presidential signature, the commander-in-chief give up a practically limitless (some would say “bottomless”) well of latitude in hunting down terrorists. That’s no small deal, and he will absolutely be attacked for doing so. However, a potentially endless war can’t carry with it endless war powers for the sole reason that these powers would become permanent and dangerous — even in the hands of an otherwise benevolent leader.
Beyond that, what more could possibly demanded? What else do these hyperkinetic bloggers and writers want? Should I be shaming the president’s character? I could spend lots of time hectoring the president for being a blood-thirsty homicidal maniac — a baby killer who eats terrorist livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti. But I doubt that would make much of a difference. I doubt the president would react well to personal attacks and, in fact, everything I know about his character leads me to believe that he responds best to pressure that’s based on factual, rational and tenacious arguments. This is my intention.
We all have our tactics and strategies. This is mine.
